Why God most certainly does not exist

[Sniffles]

As I said:

I'm not bothering with this discussion because it's following the same formula other discussions about religion here follow - and my participation seems to only complicate and disrupt the normal flow of normal discourse on such matters. Rather than do that, I'll just let you people carry on.

So yeah........

 

[simulatedworld]

Well, I'd enjoy hearing your perspective in a PM, then, if you have the time/inclination.

I'll even promise not to respond if that helps =/

 

[Mycroft]

Peguy, if you can demonstrate an alternative solution to the problem of infinite regress, you have my total assurance that those of us who strive to weigh arguments on the basis of the strength of their premises and logic will approach your solution accordingly.

As it stands, I can't help but note that in this thread, as well as similar threads, your line of reasoning can be outlined as:

1. Sometimes when I post my arguments, other posters demonstrate that they are not rationally sound.

2. I dislike this.

3. Therefore, not only shall I refuse to participate at all, I shall huffily bring attention to my refusal to participate.

 

[matmos]

Peguy, if you can demonstrate an alternative solution to the problem of infinite regress, you have my total assurance that those of us who strive to weigh arguments on the basis of the strength of their premises and logic will approach your solution accordingly.

As it stands, I can't help but note that in this thread, as well as similar threads, your line of reasoning can be outlined as:

1. Sometimes when I post my arguments, other posters demonstrate that they are not rationally sound.

2. I dislike this.

3. Therefore, not only shall I refuse to participate at all, I shall huffily bring attention to my refusal to participate.

A non-appearance is sometimes more effective than an appearance.

Ask God. Or Peguy.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Eventually it comes down to the fact that God is indefinable. And therefor discussion about the definition of God is futile.

 

[Totenkindly]

^ Can you explain why?

I know you don't want a bunch of NTP attack dogs on your ass, but I'm still very curious as to what exactly your position on this is and why.

Well, I promise just to read, I'm not going to respond... if Peg wants to invest a bit. (I'm in "absorb" mode.)

 

[Blank]

This whole argument is stupid.

The premise isn't that a god does not exist, it's that the Christian god cannot exist.

Note: I'm lazy about reading threads that go off to nowhere like this, so I may not reply to a response.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Don't worry; nobody's going to give that kind of post much of a meaningful response anyway, so we're not really missing out.

 

[redacted]

Now, this infinite God, in the tradition of most monotheistic religions, one day sets himself to creating a universe. Here is where the problem arises - the moment He creates a universe - or anything for that matter - separate from Himself, he is no longer infinite.

Didn't bother to read any responses, but this logic doesn't really work for me.

Even numbers are infinite. Say even numbers created odd numbers. Are even numbers somehow not infinite now?

You can be infinite in a finite number of dimensions. Nothing in those other dimensions take away from your infinity.

Edit: or are you saying that God is infinite in all dimensions? That should be explicitly defined IMO.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Indeed it does. My assertion, a rephrasing of Kant's formulation, is that our allegorical room was indeed "always there". This formulation is the only available solution to the problem of infinite regress. If God created the room as a space in which he adheres, i.e. as a thing separate from Himself, the problems we've been discussing arise.

There is no problem if God is not required to be all-encompassing in every way.

I am using the term "infinite" to mean "not finite", a definition in which I have a good degree of confidence.

I'd like to know what dictionary you are using. I am quite familiar with the concept of infinity and have never heard infinite used in the way you are using it. Infinite is an adjective that describes something quantitatively. It is not qualitative in nature.

As reality is infinite, it contains all states simultaneously. The notion that there was another state that it could become would indicate that there is a state which exists separate from it, thereby making it finite.

I began this thread because I believed I could provide a manner of approaching Kant's formulation that may be enlightening or at least of interest to some readers. If my presentation of this philosophical tenant has not made it more approachable for you I apologize. Perhaps in the future another, more readily-digestible manner of presentation of Kant's formulation will occur to me.

However, I would submit that, just as I did, you must be prepared to ask yourself in honesty if you have genuinely found the ration of Kant's formulation to be flawed, or if you're merely searching for grounds on which to dismiss it as the implications would not be congenial to your present beliefs.

Well I haven't read Kant, so I don't know in what capacity your post relates to what he wrote. However based on what you've written it appears to me that you've unintentionally created a straw man. Your original post says that the Judeo-Christian God is believed to be a certain way. After hearing your definition of "infinity" I don't know of anyone who holds that God is the way you are describing Him.

 

[stellar renegade]

The point is that there is no reason to say that God made the universe, as the universe could have made itself. On that note, there is also no reason to say that God is self-created, as the universe could also be self-created.

haha... what? How could an inanimate object "create" anything?

 

[kendoiwan]

There is no problem if God is not required to be all-encompassing in every way.


Well I haven't read Kant, so I don't know in what capacity your post relates to what he wrote. However based on what you've written it appears to me that you've unintentionally created a straw man. Your original post says that the Judeo-Christian God is believed to be a certain way. After hearing your definition of "infinity" I don't know of anyone who holds that God is the way you are describing Him.

You're not talking about the Judeo-Christian God if you're not talking about the Alpha and Omega, He that is that He is, burning bush, let my people go, I created everything, I made it rain for 40 days and 40 nights as punishment, turn Sarah into stone for looking back as I destroyed her home God. FTW.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

There is no problem if God is not required to be all-encompassing in every way..

Suppose we grant this. God is infinite in only one regard, just like an line that is infinite only in the direction that it is moving in.

The problem of separability of God from the universe remains a legitimate one. Suppose God is the primary entity of the universe or the first irreducible entity. Suppose also that God and the universe are distinct. In that case, did the universe come into existence on its own right. (Came from nothing, therefore was not created by god and hence the principle of creationism is rendered false.) Or is it the case that part of God was used to create the universe? In that case the universe and God are not separable and it is a mistake to maintain that God can be all good and the world evil.

That is very troubling for conventional theologies because they do indeed maintain that God is all good and the world inhabitants evil and thereby insist on the separation between God and the world.

Again, never mind the argument about infinity, suppose God is finite or only partially infinite. How do we deal with the separability problem that I outlined above.

In summary, it entails two potential problems.

(1) The universe was not created by God and hence orginated on its own right and one that is completely distinct from His creative fiat.

(2) The universe is part of God, therefore God cannot be all good and the universe evil. That is the case because the universe originated from God, therefore every property that the universe has (wickedness in this case) derived from God and therefore constitutes a part of his identity.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

(Came from nothing, therefore was not created by god and hence the principle of creationism is rendered false.)

Could you elaborate upon this? If the universe came from nothing then why couldn't God be the cause of it?

 

[Scott]

(Stuff)
That is very troubling for conventional theologies
(more stuff)

No, it's really not. Original creation ex nihilo, which seems to be a pretty traditional belief, solves this.

Even if I create something, I most likely don't use some part of myself - I use the things around me and put them together in whatever way. If God creates ex nihilo, he most certainly doesn't use some already-existing part of himself, or anything else.

Again, and as others have said, I really think you guys are making these problems yourselves and I'm having a hard time seeing what's so difficult about it that.

(Also, I plan on responding to simulatedworld very soon. I've been a bit busy lately, and couldn't resist responding to this first.)

Edit: Hah, you beat me to it this time The_Liquid_Laser! Well played.

 

[stellar renegade]

The question, "Why does anything exist, and how did it get here?" is definitely interesting. But we have to admit that regardless of the answer, everything is here and it does exist.

Why does anything exist? Well, why not? I've wondered before why things have taken shape in the way they have, but when you're in love with life the question doesn't seem to bother you. I say the best way to find the answer is not to try to erase all thought of the temporal shape of things and try to go to the basics or think abstractly, but just observe everything around us and let it teach us.

And when I observe nature and everything that exists, it all screams to me that basic reality is life and love, and there's no particular reason why anything should or should not exist. I'm just glad it does.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Could you elaborate upon this? If the universe came from nothing then why couldn't God be the cause of it?

By definition, this statements means that God is not the cause of it.

If the universe came from something, it has a cause (God may be the cause). If the universe came from nothing, there is no cause (hence, nothing can be the cause and therefore God cannot be the cause of the universe to exist).

No, it's really not. Original creation ex nihilo, which seems to be a pretty traditional belief, solves this.

Even if I create something, I most likely don't use some part of myself - I use the things around me and put them together in whatever way. If God creates ex nihilo, he most certainly doesn't use some already-existing part of himself, or anything else.

Again, and as others have said, I really think you guys are making these problems yourselves and I'm having a hard time seeing what's so difficult about it that.

(Also, I plan on responding to simulatedworld very soon. I've been a bit busy lately, and couldn't resist responding to this first.)

Edit: Hah, you beat me to it this time The_Liquid_Laser! Well played.

Okay, suppose that I am the only thing that exists in the universe. If I want to make more things, I have to use parts of myself. I cannot use things around me to create new things as they do not exist because I am the only thing that exists.

Hence, if God is the sole cause of all things, then he could not have made other things from things around him and not of things that are part of his nature. (As he is the sole cause of all things, there is nothing around him that was not once part of Him. Hence, in principle anything that God uses to create things must have come from within Him and not from without.)

If God used things that are outside of him (or around him) to create the universe, then the doctrine of Judeo-Christian theology that God is the sole creator of all things is false. (Remember, in the book of Genesis it says that God made the universe (everything that is) in 7 days?)

 

[Scott]

By definition, this statements means that God is not the cause of it.

If the universe came from something, it has a cause (God may be the cause). If the universe came from nothing, there is no cause (hence, nothing can be the cause and therefore God cannot be the cause of the universe to exist).



Okay, suppose that I am the only thing that exists in the universe. If I want to make more things, I have to use parts of myself. I cannot use things around me to create new things as they do not exist because I am the only thing that exists.

Hence, if God is the sole cause of all things, then he could not have made other things from things around him and not of things that are part of his nature.

If God used things that are outside of him (or around him) to create the universe, then the doctrine of Judeo-Christian theology that God is the sole creator of all things is false. (Remember, in the book of Genesis it says that God made the universe (everything that is) in 7 days?)

You're asserting that creation could only occur from oneself or from other already-existing things. This is precisely what creation ex nihilo denies.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You're asserting that creation could only occur from oneself or from other already-existing things. This is precisely what creation ex nihilo denies.

In that case ex nihilo proclaims the doctrine of creationism as false. God did not create all things in that case. He merely used the material that was not created by him to create our world.

This means that God is not the sole cause (or the sole creator) of all things. This undermines the doctrine of creationism.

 

[Scott]

No, that would fall under the "already-existing things" side that I already denied. In the case of creation ex nihilo he doesn't use the material that was not created by him, he creates from nothing (or, in latin, ex nihilo). I have to assume we're having some problem in communication here, but I can't for the life of my figure out what it is...